THAT’S OBSCENE

Chapter One

All the religions in the world and countless individuals decry Pornography on the Internet. But what they are really talking about is OBSCENITY on the Internet. It’s there because there are no laws to control it.

Doing something about it hinges to what created it, and leading the way – repeatedly – has been the U.S. Supreme Court. We must first understand that Pornography is a dictionary term, going back to the Greeks. Basically, anything related to mankind’s sexuality is pornographic.

For decades, archeologists have been digging up the remnants of early civilizations, going back tens of thousands of years. On the walls of the earliest cave-dwellers, there were commonly two subjects scrawled on the wall – the hunt, and human sexuality.

In Cambodia, the Temples of Ankor Vat are among the oldest in existence. Architecturally they incorporated just about every human sexual coupling imaginable; obviously pornographic, but not obscene. Centuries ago, India brought forth the Kama Sutra, a book that also dealt with a broad continuum of sexual activity. It is still in print – certainly pornographic, but not obscene.

Artists and sculptures from Greece to Leonardo da Vinci to current contemporaries are fascinated by the human form, and these stand as art’s contributions to Pornography. In all these depictions, there is a range of skill in the depictions. The high end – we call art and accept. They find their way to the Louvre and the world’s other museums.

There is much that the average eye may find as offensive from less talented creators. This may include much that some consider “in bad taste”, but violates no laws.

OBSCENITY is a term of law. There should be a legal code spelling out what are the violations. Basically, this would be anything that involves “clear and present danger” to society or its citizens. Currently, there is no such code - Federal or in any State.

While still dealing with history, there’s also the arena of “dirty stories”. These began with quill and papyrus. To the extent that any were copied, they tended to be found in the libraries of the wealthy. Some were authored by sequestered monks, and may well have become the beginning of the Vatican’s collection.

Then – in the 1600’s – Guttenberg invented the printing press. Benjamin Franklin authored pornographic stories – so did Mark Twain. From Boccacchio to Chaucer, one found pornography in literature. In the middle of the 20^th Century, colleges had a restricted area in their libraries, referred to as “stacks”, which were not accessible to all students. One had to be a professor or major in a specific field to gain access. This included the most horrible book I ever encountered – Krafft-Ebbing’s “Psycopathia Sexualis”.

Across time, for many ages, even the most reprehensible was quite tightly controlled. That doesn’t mean that there were not times of moral outrage. In the 30’s and 40’s, there was much condemnation of Esquire magazine – due to the “Varga Girls” and some saucy cartoons. They weren’t even pornographic. Attacked in the same vein were the “Petty Girls”, nudist magazines, and Jane Russell.

Society was basically so moralistic in those days that Hollywood created the Hayes Office, superseded by Joseph Breen and the Motion Picture Production Code. Even married couples had to sleep in twin beds. If a man and a woman were on a bed, each must have one foot on the floor. No significant cleavage – Howard Hughes engineered a special bra for Jane Russell. That was as sexy as “The Outlaw” got, but was sufficient to get it banned by many States and conservative Cities.

I was raised in Olympia, Washington. No theaters there would show it. A theater in Centralia booked it as “adults only”. Naturally, half the males in Olympia High School car-pooled to Centralia to sneak in. (We went all the way to Seattle to see Hedy Lamarr, swimming in the nude – if you squinted real hard – it was shot at a distance through trees and branches – with no close-up lens.)

As an only child in a Fundamentalist upbringing, I didn’t know the anatomical difference between boys and girls until the first issue of Life Magazine, which featured a photo spread of Greek statuary. I snuck that into my bedroom for closer scrutiny. In essence, society was pretty well protected in the 30’s and 40’s. That’s probably why the roof blew off in 1953, when Hugh Hefner introduced Playboy Magazine.

Playboy ostensibly was attacked as obscene due to a centerfold of a carefully posed young woman, au natural, and well air-brushed. By dictionary terms, it was a stretch to refer to it as pornography, most definitely NOT obscene. If truth be told, the uproar related more to his editorials than any visual images.

What society objects to today on the Internet has become known as XXX, whether still photography or streaming video. At this point, we must consider two things. Between WWI and the year 2001, there were things that the general public was not told about. When the media fell onto a story, it never got printed. Early television never broadcast that which was scandalous. And, the close of the 20^th Century brought “clear and present danger” to areas of sex that were previously thought safe.

THE UNDERBELLY

In WWI, some of our military encountered French Postcards. These were usually a postcard-size piece of pasteboard on which appeared a dim image of a man and woman in a sexual act. Not much was visible. The photography was amateurish. If existent today, they’d be in “collections” as a sort of artifact.

Graduates of WWII snuck booklets into their duffel bags. The photography was better, the subjects more attractive, and the “action” more distinct. One of these circulated in my high school study hall. Each week-end, a different boy got to take it home. When it was my turn, my mother found it in my sock drawer and burned it. I got a tongue-lashing from my father, but that was nothing compared to the beatings I took from classmates for close to a month.

In parallel, in the 1930’s many, many beautiful young girls got on a bus for Hollywood to seek fame and fortune. Very few ever found their dream. But there were unscrupulous men with slight connections to a studio that would promise parts if they’d “audition”. Ever since, this has been referred to as the “casting couch”. Hundreds of these black-and-white films were made on 16mm movie stock.

Today they would most likely elicit laughs. The male, literally always, wore a mask or a huge beard and mustache (with similar eyebrows). And they almost never took off their shoes and socks (always black).

The general public was largely unaware of this. If there was a market for such films in those days (probably unlikely, as most homes didn’t have a 16mm projector and screen), there was only one conduit.

In almost every metropolitan city, under “talent agencies” in the yellow pages, there was one that booked “stag shows”. The market was VFW clubs and any other organization that might toss a “boy’s night out”. For a fee, the agent would provide an hour or so of stag films (usually four or five 15-minute films, several strippers (at least one of which was prepared to go in a backroom). I’m sure that most wives thought their husbands were bowling.

Then, the City of Seattle decided to become the porno production capitol of the United States. They legislated what was known as the “pan-am” industry, limited to seven licensed premises that just happened to be realty owned by them or some of Seattle’s most distinguished citizens. (In 1959, the Gambino family sent reps to scout for possible expansion. On their return, they said “forget it, Seattle already has its own mafia”.)

The rationale, as spelled out in the Ordinances, was to keep the military, the winos, and other perverts out of the neighborhoods, and magnetize them to the length of the city’s historic “skid road” area. They started with black-and-white films, usually University of Washington coeds, writhing on the bed in the nude. This was certainly pornography, but technically not obscene.

But by the end of the War, the content was old hat. (Each 12-minute reel was divided into four parts, ten-cents for each part.) They went to color film and XXX – eight parts at twenty-five cents each. They hired as their cinematographer a young man who had won three Emmys for CBS, and just happened to do all the filming related to Boeing’s defense contracts. This allowed keeping all the XXX negatives in Boeing’s “Top Secret” vaults.

This industry ultimately involved five City Ordinances, the last of which created the Seattle Board of Theatre Supervisors, whose initial one and only job was to view every XXX “loop” film, codify it, and label it as “not obscene”. As a result, if you saw an XXX film in a “pan-am” machine in any Amusement Center in the U.S., there was an 80% probability it was produced in Seattle.

In the mid-50’s, I started what I intended to build as a theatre circuit, specializing in International Film Festivals’ award-winners. While having no problem with obscenity, the – what I called Censor Board – totally believed in Joe McCarthy’s bromide that “all foreign films are part of the Communist Conspiracy”. So they devoted themselves to trying to put me out of business.

Thanks to William L. Dwyer, my attorney and good friend, I survived many City Council “show cause” Hearings as to why they shouldn’t pull my license. Finally, in 1964 they announced they were banning Swedish Director Ingmar Bergman’s “The Silence” based on a scene vividly described by the Chairman on TV (which was not in the picture).

We immediately filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle, the Seattle City Council, and the Seattle Board of Theatre Supervisors challenging the constitutionality of all five Ordinances. We won. The city appealed. The Supreme Court called it in our favor, 9-0. Interestingly, while as of 1966 there was no Theatre Board legally constituted, they continued to meet and view every XXX film produced, codifying and issuing their “not obscene” ruling. As a result, there was not a bust in two decades.

As for my lifesaver, Bill Dwyer, he emerged as the only Democrat named to the Federal Court in Ronald Reagan’s eight years, and in February 2002, he was named by the Seattle Times as one of the 150 most important people in Seattle’s 150 years. He far out-weighed the aggravation of having my front windshield blown away by a double barrel shotgun while enroute to Olympia on I-5 for a legislative Hearing; or three arson attempts, three armed robberies involving gun-in-face and a pistol-whipping (and two nose-crushing assaults).

CHAPTER 2 ENTER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

In 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an Appeal re: “U.S. vs. Roth”, a conviction for sending obscene materials across State lines. The Court reversed the conviction on the grounds that the law was vague and therefore unconstitutional. The door was wide open for the Court to give instructions to the Fed and States as to how to write a proper law.

They didn’t. Ironically, in 1955 the membership of the Supreme Court was one of American history’s best, a team of experienced and brilliant jurists. But they ran from the subject like scared rabbits. Justice Potter Stewart spoke for the Court, saying “I can’t define it (obscenity), but I know it when I see it.”

They wound up issuing a decision that contained a menu of the good vs. bad. (1) It must conform to “community standards” (Note: they failed to define “community” – are they talking “Federal”, which would be logical, or can Pearl, Texas, or Opp, Alabama, enact a law hinged to their “standards”). (2) The “work” must be viewed as a whole – if the whole had any social, educational or artistic value, it could not be charged as “obscene” (that, alone, let “Playboy” off the hook). (3) To be obscene, it must appeal to “prurient interests” (undefined).

To each and every person, “obscenity” is in the eye of the beholder. So they rendered a “definition” that was as hopelessly vague as laws on the books since 1910 (“the Blue Laws”). But based on this decision, in no time there was a Censor Board in every State and major city. This began two decades of prosecutions (and convictions) that each – in turn – were over-turned by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the respective Censor Board ruled unconstitutional.

Now, there was not one of these jurists in 1955 – if discussing law in general – that would not have hammered that ALL criminal law must be related to “clear and present danger” (to a citizen or the person himself/herself or the public at large). Specificity was critical, and this should have been explained.

The U.S. Supreme Court blew it again – in two cases emanating out of San Francisco. Carol Doda was convicted, based on totally nude dancing. Separately, another young woman was convicted for “lap dancing”, which is a nude young woman writhing on a man’s lap until she can tell he has had an orgasm. In both cases, the convictions were overturned on the grounds that the law violated their “freedom of expression”.

By 1960, I had ten years of studying law, and took pride in my command of the U.S. Constitution. At one point I received what I took as a great compliment from a distinguished Federal judge – that I had a command of First Amendment law in excess of most lawyers who came before the Bench. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees “freedom of expression”. If I punch someone in the nose, I have expressed myself. I am also guilty of assault. “Road rage” is expression, but the perpetrator remains vulnerable to vehicular homicide.

When the U.S. Supreme Court expanded “free speech” to “freedom of expression”, they committed an unpardonable act - one whose consequences are still being suffered. To get rid of obscenity, a first step must be a repeal of this ruling.

In this same decade, the 60’s, President Richard Nixon convened a Presidential Commission to study and report on obscenity. The final Report translated into a four-inch thick paperback. A number of foreign countries had specifically legalized obscene materials. The Commission’s conclusions were basically two. On the positive side, they found no substantiation that such materials were harmful. Then they proclaimed that if a prohibitive law were written – to hold up under Court challenge – the law in itself would be obscene.

From the “Bible Belt” to the “Moral Majority”, this didn’t fly. So, less than two decades later – long before anyone dreamed of the Internet – President Ronald Reagan convened another Commission. After study, again, of all things internationally available – they came back with the same conclusions.

If this is shocking to the reader, let me explain the dilemma. For two decades, I was fighting motion picture censorship in behalf of the Hollywood film studios. Employed by Western Lectures & Concerts, my picture was carried on its catalogue cover, right alongside Dr. Joyce Brothers. My job was to tour colleges as a guest speaker, and to appear before groups or on TV as part of debates or panel discussions.

The first year was horribly frustrating. Hollywood particularly wanted me to defuse expected outcry as to a coming movie “Joe”, which ends in a hippie commune in which a nude, teen-age Susan Sarandon is shot dead by her father. Instead, between PTA appearances and women’s organizations, the protests were against “Two Mules for Sister Sarah”, which they deemed obscene for portraying Clint Eastwood smuggling dance hall girl Shirley McLaine through Indian territory in a nun’s habit.

This was akin to the Seattle Board of Theatre Supervisors trying to ban a showing of Pagnol’s “Letters from My Windmill”, because it portrayed a Catholic Archbishop who loved food. Enroute to deliver High Mass, he passes a half dozen chefs preparing tables full of gourmet victuals for his later repast. As he delivers the Mass, images of those platters of food circle in his mind, and the Mass becomes faster and faster until he sounds like a tobacco auctioneer via his speed of delivery, so that he could get to that food. Obscene? No!!! But they were essentially equating “obscenity” with “sacrilege”.

This was forty years ago. No one had yet thought of home computers, much less imagining an international Internet. Basically, good people were opposed to obscenity, but these same good people had never viewed such. They really didn’t know what we were talking about. For all of these forty years, they have raled against pornography. Because of the U.S. Supreme Court, they were unprepared to throw away a dictionary term (pornography) and focus on the “clear and present danger” of OBSCENITY.

In the preparation for our lawsuit against the Seattle statutes, my attorney and I conducted tours of First Avenue XXX pan-am parlors, literally pressuring priests, rabbis, preachers, and even the drama critics for the metropolitan dailies – to establish the hypocrisy of the City Council’s actions and expose to the public what was being shown to male customers with a roll of quarters. Almost all were shocked beyond belief. They were totally unaware of what was really XXX. I have always believed that this was critical to the Court’s decision (via a true perspective).

My solution for the public presentations was to recruit Senators Warren Magnuson and Henry “Scoop” Jackson (two of the most powerful in the U.S. Senate) and JFK/LBJ Cabinet member Brock Adams to create a U.S. Customs and U.S. Postal Service waiver allowing importation of all we saw fit. An agent was sent to England, France, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, Germany and Sweden – to select and forward the broadest continuum of obscene materials (which included material from Turkey, India, and the Far East).

From then on, I would open each program with “Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about obscenity. If your stomachs are strong, look at the enemy. Understand clearly what we are fighting. Try to understand the legal Code we need”. There was full comprehension, but little letter writing to Federal or State legislators.

Chapter Three

-CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER-

It is Congress that must instigate a reversal of the “freedom of expression” error. A measure of this urgency may be found in the mentality of the present Court, which recently ruled that “computerized” Kiddie Porn was protected. If the vilest activity was a product of CGI or other computeristics, and no actual humans were portrayed, it was protected “freedom of expression”.

It is also Congress that must lead the way in developing a Federal legal Code – that would then most certainly be parroted by State legislatures and Municipal City Councils. That which shall be deemed criminal is that which poses a major and dangerous set of risks to the participants. Simply viewing obscenity at present is a logical psychological risk to the viewer, but at present there is no scientific proof to support a “clear and present danger” statute; and the worst thing that can happen is new laws that are vague, or unprovable, and would be struck down. So, where do we start?

“SNUFF FILMS”

The typical plot of a “snuff” film is an attractive young woman, who is gang-raped, and then either slit open from gullet to pelvis, or dismembered. This, of course, combines sex and murder. The violent death of the “star” certainly establishes “clear and present danger”. Under a proper law, aside from the slayer(s) being guilty of murder – the producer(s), director, cinematographer, and anyone else involved are equally guilty. In addition, and importantly, any distributor or Website host who make such available to the public are co-conspirators after-the-fact.

Now, informationally, at present the FBI and U.S. Justice Department claim never to have seen a “snuff film”, or found anyone who has. This is because they have collectively approached obscenity with the efficiency of the Keystone Kops.

As a sense of “back story”, a motion picture titled “Deep Throat” was produced in 1970 by a handful of individuals who had previously been involved through the 60’s in making “nudie movies”, which involved no actual sex activity – just a rip-off of some former Hollywood film plots with the inclusion of full frontal nudity every few minutes. These films wound up in many of the nation’s drive-in theaters.

The producing partners reacted quickly to the appearance in America’s “art theatres” of a movie, titled “I Am Curious, Yellow” – from Denmark – that portrayed an attractive young blonde journalist devoted to “man on the street” interviews, who privately sought every possible means of sexual activity, and if in public, so much the better.

As a group, the “soft core porno” fraternity wouldn’t know an “art film” if it hit them over the head. Their reaction was “they’re ‘doing it” on the big screen – let’s do a comedy and go all the way”. Ironically, their timing was perfect. In 1971, the two decade “Golden Age of Foreign Films” was dead. I had three choices: (1) play “Beach Blanket Bingo” day-and-date with the drive-ins; (2) convert to porno; or (3) sell out. I had been able to look my customers in the eye as they exited for 20 years - #1 and #2 were out of the question. Whatever I owned, I sold.

“Deep Throat” was initially distributed by a long-time and honorable L.A. distribution company. I attended the “trade screening” in San Francisco – not really knowing what I was going to see. After the screening, he took me aside, and offered me the picture for Seattle. Coincidentally, I had testified for his company in a copyright infringement suit. He told me that he had always felt badly that he’d been unable to pay me more than the established “expert” witness fee in view of my treatment by the defense. (Out of spite, they put me on THEIR witness list, knowing that all movie guys are “night people”, and this would require me to sit on a hard bench outside the Courtroom for two weeks. They never called me.)

I responded “sell it to Sol (my partner in Portland theatres); I’m getting out, but if he plays it, we’re square”. I should explain that at this point, neither the producers nor the distributor knew if conventional theaters would play it. Sol’s theatre had a good week if grossing $700. Portland had never really bought into foreign-language films and artsy directors. “Deep Throat” opened to $25,000. In the first ten weeks it grossed something like $10,000,000, nationally, which in the 70’s was akin to any Hollywood “blockbuster”.

Then I got a phone call in Seattle. It was one of the producers. “I had a visit this morning from a Gambino family enforcer”, he said, “yesterday they murdered my partner. I either sign the picture over to them or suffer the same fate. You and Sol have always been very honest with me. The print is yours to play as long as you want. Forget the film rental.”

The female star of “Deep Throat” was Linda Lovelace, wife of the picture’s cinematographer. After becoming a “star”, she split, living the next couple of years in the Playboy Mansion with Hugh Hefner. When this ended, she “got religion”, claiming she had made the picture at gunpoint – that it had been made by the mafia. That was total fabrication (as is most of her book). The above marks the point at which the mob jumped into XXX.

After the third month, I got a second call. This was a 7AM wake-up call from a dese-dem-dose gravelly voice, saying “I hear you’re playing our picture in your Portland theatre.” I explained that I was no longer a co-owner – that my name WAS on a valid contract, and that Sol had been gifted with the print under what had become extenuating circumstances. He wouldn’t believe that the print would still be intact after three months of 12 shows per day.

The next week-end, two goons in black suits, black shirts and white ties showed up at the Aladdin. Sol was his own projectionist, so he assisted in their examining every reel on the manual re-wind. Many, many splices – the film was probably ten minutes shorter, but the audience didn’t know (or didn’t care). One of the two eventually straightened up and said “OK, but we better not hear that you ever get another print except from us”.

Most likely, the New York hoodlums had no idea there was a lab in Portland that could make a 35mm color dupe. Altogether, the film played at the Aladdin for SEVEN YEARS, and made Sol and his wife wealthy. Retaliation, I think, was probably blocked by the fact that within the first year, there were dozens of others with names like “The Devil and Miss Jones”, “The Green Door” (with the “Ivory Snow” box model) – a new industry had been born.

It was a brief one. By the debut of the 80’s, America’s attentions– especially its youth – had turned to something called VHS. Not only was this the Death knell for porno theaters, but also for the nation’s Drive-In theaters. Ironically, in 1971 I had translated the liquidation of my “art theatre” properties into a 40% equity in a small circuit that showed primarily Disneyesque “G” and “PG” films, and included the Drive-In with the highest per capita concession sales in the U.S. This was very good to me for a decade, then the roof fell in, and I again sold out.

At this point, then fifteen years involved in Thoroughbred racing, I relocated to Las Vegas, where – within a year – I met Rueben Sturman. He had been established in Las Vegas by the crime families of New York, Chicago, Kansas City, and New Orleans to head up organized crime involvement in the XXX domain. For some reason, aware of my involvement in blowing away film censorship, he presumed I was on his side. I was shown most everything he had.

The first “snuff films” were products of the Brazil “Death Squads” of the late 70’s. The films were smuggled into the U.S. with drug contraband. I would be the first to testify about the inherent danger of ever viewing such content. As has been said, if dependent on drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs, or smoking – there is rehab; and there are support groups. Once images are imprinted on the brain, they haunt you for life.

“KIDDIE PORN”

This was the next focus of the mob. While a 60-minute, 16mm “Snuff Film” brought $100,000, there were not enough deviants with that kind of money, and this was a strictly under-the-counter market. With the advent of VHS, they could get a smaller sticker price from a much larger market with “Kiddie Porn”. The moment that VHS became a reality, a group settled in Chatsworth, California. They were nick-named the “Armenian Mafia”, and began cranking out XXX films that were VERY pornographic, but which were rarely prosecuted. They reached a level of 3000 films per year, held an annual Convention in Las Vegas – three days of their product and starlets – spread over the square footage of either the Las Vegas Convention Center or the Sahara Hotel/Casino.

This group also launched a broad scale direct mail operation, sending catalogues to millions of homes. As years passed, their scope became increasingly bizarre, but again avoided any significant prosecutions because there simply was no proper law to enforce. However, they largely were careful to stay away from obvious obscenity, as herein described. Possibly, their main contribution to the State of California was a massive expansion of AIDS. They’re still in full operation, just visit your nearest “Adult Video” store.

Organized crime could not compete – except where simply raunchy businessmen would not tread. An initial supply of “Kiddie Porn” was obtainable from Rodox Trading in Copenhagen. These films wound up immediately in mob-owned pan-am parlors – at least a half dozen in Las Vegas, alone. Naturally, it was not long before they needed more product, so it was Sturman’s job to create production. For two decades, California law enforcement has suspected that a significant number of child and teen-age abductions hinged to what has become a documented international sex slave trade.

When I previously referred to “Keystone Kops” analogy, I wasn’t kidding. In most of the 18 years I lived in Las Vegas, the U.S. Department of Justice tried to make a case against Sturman. They projected for the jurors bestiality films, sex films with probable teen-agers, films of women defecating and urinating on each other – but in their entire prosecution, they called not a single psychiatrist or psychologist or doctor as an “expert witness”. The words “clear and present danger” were never uttered.

I’m sure no juror could imagine anyone pumping quarters into a pan-am machine to see such garbage. They voted “no harm, no foul” and acquitted. This happened twice. Finally, one of his dese-dem-dose managers mailed something that he shouldn’t across State lines. In this case, Sturman was charged as an accomplice (since they were his films). The manager got heavy time. Sturman got a few years in a country club prison (no walls or guard towers). One day he just walked away. After considerable time passed, he was apprehended – but he died before they got him back in Court. I’m not sure they know his successor. I do. I’ve never heard of another prosecution.

This is unquestionably the top reason/need for “clear and present danger” law. These are human beings that are not of the age of consent. Neither their bodies nor their psyche are yet fully formed. Physical injury and disease are real risks, but perhaps neither can compare with the emotional scarring; and one shudders as to what happens to them when their captors are through with them.

There is also a very sad corollary. In the younger generations, particularly of the last three decades, the number hooked on hard drugs is legion. There are street corner pushers that can pipeline a destitute User with an attractive child into a trade-out, drugs for sex. Today, we even see this on NBC’s “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit”, as well as on many other “procedural” TV dramas (CSI, etc.). There seems to be no doubt that this area of obscenity has directly led to the expansion of registered pedophiles.

To me, emotionally, this should be a capital crime; but whatever a “clear and present danger” statute is developed, it should apply to producer, director, cinematographer, distributor, and retailer – whatever the media or form (film, TV, magazines, Internet, or whatever). The law needs sufficient teeth that no Internet URL/Website would dare to host it.

Obviously, this is the second level of obscenity that is out there, and shouldn’t be. Note: there is no “kiddie porn” icon. Our children are somewhat protected because these sites are carefully hidden. (Law enforcement can find them by asking most any pedophile.) But, in spite of a lesser risk of exposure, danger also exists in the fact that these sites are like Medusa’s head – cut off one snake and two more appear.

BESTIALITY

Girls and women having sex with dogs, ponies, horses, snakes, eels, pigs, and even lobsters – in this there is clear and present danger. There are hundreds – maybe thousands – of Websites. Ten years ago I know of only one – out of Amsterdam. Most all are inter-connected. If your son or daughter accidentally stumbled on one, he/she would be caught in a “loop”. Hit “x” to close, or “back” to get away, and you will simply be bounced to another bestiality site.

I have a degree in Psychology, which included classes in Abnormal Psychology and internship at an institution for the criminally insane.

Unless it hinges to drug dependency, and a willingness to do anything for a “hit”, I have to believe that every participant in this field is mentally ill. I have seen no studies or statistics to support this, but that’s my gut feeling.

So, the participant qualifies as the victim of a “clear and present danger” crime. There is still a body of science that believes AIDS is a product of a mutation resulting from bestiality. There are other diseases inherent. Dogs, ponies, and horses – when frightened – in withdrawing can pull out a woman’s insides, causing fatal peritonitis. And what happens if that rubber-band around the lobster’s claw breaks? The PHYSICAL danger to all women participating is immense. And if mentally disturbed, engaging in these acts could result in irreparable psychological damage.

If being realistic, this is by far the most dangerous section of obscenity on the Internet because it is so potentially viewed by accident. There is also a secondary risk. Imagine your daughter at a school lunch table. Behind at another table are teen-age boys talking and laughing. She might hear someone refer to www, and a word she has never heard, dot- com. With the best and strict upbringing, teen-age curiosity might provoke punching in the address to see what they were talking about.

I have to believe that the medical community and lawmakers could develop a proper law that would rid us of this field. Informationally, each such site – when it debuts – will display to the viewer up to hundreds of samples of what membership will entail. These will be out there for months; then they will curtail to maybe a dozen. What they are after is money. How much?

While still in Las Vegas, a friend sent me a couple of pages from the Seattle Times. A young man, 25-years-old, put up a Web Page, www.clublove.com. It was really innocuous by today’s standards. When they ran the article three years later, they established that in the three years, “Seth” had made $28,000,000. That’s from a SINGLE Website.

I read a lot. It is clear that this is not a religious issue (although ALL religions protest). ALL parents want to protect their young. It’s something that should be wired into every brain. But as I read from all directions, I have developed an overall concern. It is very unlikely that those who protest have actually totally explored the Internet porn sites.

I sense too many protests sounding like the 60’s – “Playboy” et al.

The above three sectors of obscenity – hopefully they will never see. But, I urge one and all to at least discuss them with your children. I would expect responses like “gross” and “eeew”. Any temptation to explore will have been blocked. The important thing is to spare them those images that can never be removed from the brain.

“SICK SEX”

All of the things about which we would complain are the product of a biblical passage “the love of money is the root of all evil”. Money is the name of the game. One has to believe that the figures on Internet Porn viewing indicate a large army of mentally disturbed in our population.

It goes without saying that the “bad guys” will see them as having the most vulnerable pocketbooks; so they seem to race each other to find a new level of “gross”.

Let me cite one example – the vision that most haunts me. Maybe twenty years ago there was a book – “Boxing Helena”. It told the story of a surgeon who fell deeply in love with a very young, beautiful girl. The girl was extremely intelligent for her age, witty, wonderful to be around. (It was understood that the sex was great.) Naturally, she tired of him and was going to walk out of his life. At this point, he amputated her arms and legs and kept her in the kind of box usually holding four dozen roses. That way she was always there for whatever his needs.

Some years later, a Hollywood company filmed it. In a widely publicized case, Kim Bassinger was sued for $8,000,000 for refusing to play the part. If you happen upon a certain Amsterdam Website, you may find yourself looking at a full-screen photo of a very, very pretty young girl – maybe 15, totally nude, smiling sweetly at the camera. Her legs have been amputated just below the hips; she is standing on the stumps. Both arms were amputated at the shoulders. To me, this is as gross as it gets. We have to remember that those that have created and feed the Internet have dollar signs for eyes and no souls. I don’t want to even think about what may have happened to this young girl. But, I expect that she was just thrown away, having served their purpose.

MALE/FEMALE CONSENSUAL

There are thousands of sites that are extremely degrading of women. A prime example would be www.bukkake.com (originating in Japan). But, sadly, I don’t think they can write a law directed at crude, mean, nasty, inconsiderate. These are offenses that cannot meet the “clear and present danger” test. For these things, and for male-female consensual sex, they will be beyond reach of criminal law.

However, there could be other options. Because of two decades of records as to the spread of AIDS, States and Municipalities might legislate requirements for “shoot day” testing, instead of monthly (where there is any requirement at all); and possibly require a hired Health Department representative to be present at all shoots (as supervisor and enforcer). Plus proof of age relative to participants is very lax. Fake ID is a constant. Legislate a requirement demanding specific corroboration, then double-check all shoots (at their expense), and this would be another important deterrent.

There is also one other possible argument as to male/female consensual sex on the Internet. Those who lived through the 30’s to the 60’s saw comparatively few reports of pedophilia/child abuse, and relatively low statistics as to rape, and especially rape/murder. There will be argumentation that this is because media didn’t cover many such stories, and there was a lack of reporting such offenses. But the fact is customs and moral values of the time were stricter.

My counter-argument is that with the 60’s came “turn off, drop out, turn on”, and “make love, not war” and a broad emphasis on “free love”. This was followed by the “swinging 70’s”, “wife swapping” and orgies. Picture a youth growing up in these decades, and as a young man, who is physically unattractive and unable to achieve normal relationships with the opposite sex through total lack of social skills.

In adulthood, such a person may well become bitter – aware of the perceived “party life” and broad scale promiscuity – and become bitter to the edge of anti-social behavior. Now confront him with the Internet, and the barrage of sexual enticement in the media. How much do these things feed in to the point of triggering violent acts? This argumentation would probably be akin to opposing the gun lobby, but it seems at least worth a try. And I’m sure there are statistics, and at least an area of psychiatry that would agree with this premise.

In closing, there are TWO ways to attack Internet Porn. (1) Use criminal law to put the really bad guys in jail. (2) Hit them in the pocketbook. Stop the cash flow. If people don’t subscribe, they’re out of business. Tough criminal law could take away the biggest chunk, as relates to the most dangerous content. If non-criminal material were approached via health code requirements (as well as verification of age), this would be an additional major hit to their cash flow. Take away the profit, and they’ll look for another source of income.

Obviously I have a familiarity with Internet Porn. From 1999-2001, I scoped out every site I could find, and downloaded a cross-section of what was offered. Everything is in storage, along with everything related to the two decade campaign to scotch vague censorship laws, and to the elimination of Seattle’s porn industry. Be it legislative Hearings or criminal prosecutions, as long as I’m still breathing I believe I could be a valid “expert witness”.

No single person can eliminate this cancer of the mind. This must be turned into a political issue. Those running for President – or to be Governors or Mayors – or for seats in either Federal or State legislatures (Congress) – must take a position on this issue – now and until corrective criminal law is in place.

So, please get out paper and pen and write your Congressman/woman (Washington, D.C.). and to your State Legislators. All Federal Legislators have website (for mailing addresses); and both Federal and State should be in the Yellow pages of your local phone book. Also, PLEASE ask as many people as possible to view this website. We need a geometric expansion of letter writing to create a true "grass roots" campaign. Thank you!

-THE END-